If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Unless Miami develops a clear vision of what they want the team to look like, this argument is kind of . . . moot. You draft players who fit what you're doing. It's the reason Seattle has the best secondary with one 1st RD player, two 5th RD players, and one 6th RD player starting in their secondary. When you look along the Seattle D, the high draft picks are few and far between. The D-line with its amazing pass rushing depth doesn't have a 1st RD pick; it does have multiple UDFA's. When you look at the LB unit, you have one 1st RD pick in Bruce Irvin, a 2nd in Wagner, and a 4th in Wright. So this D that is as good as any in recent memory has two 1st RD picks and one 2nd. How does that happen? Are they finding gems that everyone missed out on? To some extent, yes, but the bigger story is that they have a clear vision of what they need a player to do well, so they can take flawed prospects (Richard Sherman btw was abused during Senior Bowl week) and make them All Pros or huge contributors in that system. It's the reason every year, people are really blah about Seattle's drafts. They note all the areas where their picks struggled and talk about how they reached on almost every pick. The exception would be the Okung/Thomas draft. It's the reason teams try to copy their big DB approach and end up looking like fools, because their big CB's don't seem to play as well for some reason.

I was really hoping that Miami would find a way to poach someone from the Seattle organization this off season. There's more than one way to get it done, but it has to be a physical brand, and you have to have a clear vision for what you're doing. Our entire organization seems to stumble through everything we do without any direction.

Everyone on here should read this post.

It's not just about system fits, it's about accentuating the best traits of each player, within an overall structure and vision for the team.

I used to think that drafting BIGGEST NEED was more important than drafting the BEST PLAYERS. But how far has this really gotten us? I think Ireland did not draft either our biggest need, nor did he take the best players on the board in his series of drafts over the years.

To me the main reason we cannot compete with teams like the Patriots, Denver, etc., is our offense just doesn't put up enough points. You can be an average team defensively and win, but if you cannot score points with the way the NFL is currently set up, you are not going to win.

I think we need to add another top WR, a solid TE and a quality RB...nothing against Miller and the other RB's, but we need guys who can catch the ball out of the backfield, and make some big plays.

I would focus on getting weapons on offense, and get the O-lineman through free agency or later draft picks.

I pretty much agree. You win with playmakers and guys that can score points. I'd not go WR at 19 tho. I'd rather go TE and the RB and WR later on.I agree also on trying to get at least 2 starting o-linemen in free agency.

You pick for need. Surely last year strengthens that argument. We had 3 legitimate pass rushing DE's, but a piss poor O'line which cost us a chance of playoffs and had our No.1 priority RT, running for his life all season.

What I would do though is handle re-signings and FA, so that your perceived needs are the strength of the draft.

This year I would double up on 4 positions, WR, OT, DT & CB, with us targeting one of the OT's in 1st round.

You draft BPA. The draft is an inexact science. Roughly 1/3 of 1st rd picks are busts or never live up to their draft status. You reduce your risk of missing on a 1st rd pick when you take the highest graded player. If you draft for need (especially if you reach) and the player is a bust, then you are back at square one. In many ways, the draft is a crapshoot, so you have to play the odds. First and foremost you want good football players. Its better to stockpile talent because you can always trade away in a position of depth.
After Shula had success in the 1990 draft with Richmond Webb and Keith Sims, he thought he could repeat his success a few yrs later on the right side of the O line. He wanted Korey Stringer, but the Vikes took him a few picks before. Shula then reached and drafted Billy Milner (LT). He followed that up in the 2nd rd with another reach in Andrew Green (G). Neither player made an impact in the league.
Even though O line was a need, Shula would have been better off picking the BPA and increasing the overall talent on the team.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Shula was a bumbling fool by the 1990s. He quickly abandoned everything that made him a HOF coach after drafting Marino. Unfortunately/fortunately, Marino was great enough to make things seem better than they were. We were toward the top of the league in rushing attempts and D almost every season before we drafted Marino. After that . . . complete 180.

As to YOUR point, it's simplistic. It's been covered on these forums, but teams use horizontal draft boards. Between Sammy Watkins and Greg Robinson, who is better? Which would be BPA? You can make cases for either, but ultimately, you're going to draft either based on what you're trying to accomplish within your system.

If you're looking for a RB and an OT and the best RB available and the best OT available rate out similarly, you look at who you project to be available at your next pick at those positions. For example: I can draft Lewan or Hill at 19, but drop off after Hill is significantly steeper than the drop off at OT after Lewan. More specifically, you're drafting guys who will look good in YOUR system.

It's rare that there is a player available who is just clearly better than all the other players available. This is talk you get between fans that say I want all the best guys on my team' - without realizing that most of these players' success will be heavily dependent upon the system they're drafted to. Good teams draft players who will look better in their system than they would in most other systems. THAT'S how you get value - not by being the "smartest" kid at the lunch table.

You have a reading comprehension problem. Obviously, there are guys in different positions who have a similar grade. In that instance, all things being equal you draft for need/ fit. My point (if you bothered to read my entire post) was that you dont REACH simply to fill a need.
As to Shula being a bumbling fool, that is just a moronic statement from you. Shula clearly lost some of his passion when his 1st wife Dorothy battled (and ultimately succumbed) to breast cancer. He kept much of that private.
The fact that you would take such a classless cheap shot at such an honorable man says a lot about you.

I read your entire post. It said you draft BPA, gave benefits for stockpiling talent, and gave an example of a team drafting bad players too early.

The point is that need vs BPA is not the correct argument. The reason good teams seem to continue to find good players - in all rounds - is that they have a clear vision of what they need out of a player. You don't get guys like Richard Sherman and Kam Chancellor late in the draft, because everyone else just missed out on these great players. You get them, because you understand their strengths and weaknesses and know how they'll work in your system and which other types of players you'll need to surround them with.

People RARELY accuse the Seahawks of drafting the BPA. By now, people are hesitant to criticize them, because they keep turning out some of the best players in the league. They're not drafting for "need" either. They're not plugging holes. They're drafting specific types of players that fit their system. If you have a clear vision and any type of talent at the GM position, you're going to have successful drafts (assuming that vision is worth a damn).